Tuesday Tid-Bits
January 15th, 2008
John Murtha has certainly distinguished himself well as a US Congressman, don’t you think?
America’s youngest Governor has assumed his office:
BATON ROUGE, La. – Republican Bobby Jindal was sworn in Monday as Louisiana’s 55th governor, and moved quickly to make good on a campaign promise to clean up the corrupt image of this hurricane-battered state.
“We have the opportunity _ born of tragedy but embraced still the same _ to make right decades of failure in government,” Jindal said in his inaugural speech, referring to hurricanes Katrina and Rita of 2005.
Jindal, a former congressman, became Louisiana’s first nonwhite governor since Reconstruction and the nation’s first Indian-American chief executive.
He said he will call a special legislative session Feb. 10 to address the state’s image as a haven for cronyism and self-serving politicians.
“We can build a Louisiana where our leaders and our people set the highest standards and hold every member of our government accountable, a Louisiana where incompetence is not a synonym for government, a Louisiana where corruption does not hold us back,” he said without providing specifics.
From everything I have heard or read about Governor Jindal, this can only be good news for the State of Louisiana.
Beer wards off cancer??
Preliminary studies indicate xanthohumol, a compound found in hops, inhibits a family of enzymes which trigger cancer, as well as help the body detoxify carcinogens.
“It’s very healthy,” said Dr. Werner Back, a brewing technology expert at the Technical University of Munich. “I think the ingredients in the beer are very good.”
But there’s a catch:
Researchers warn that it would take 60 regular beers to equal the amount of xanthohumol they were able to brew in one beer.
Guess that would be well over the “legal limit.”
The LA Times is nabbed for not doing their homework. Here’s the gist of the subject matter:
Bogus Statistics, Courtesy of the L.A. Times Editorial Board? Late last month, an L.A. Times editorial reported that “In our America, 60 million people survive on $7 a day” — which is to say that 20% of the population survives on $2555 or less a year.
That’s obviously way wrong: As of 2006, according to the Census, 12.3% of the population lived at or below the poverty level, which was $10,294 for a single person and $24,382 for the average family of five ($23,691 if one assumes only one adult and four children). Thus, even if all the poor people in the country were in families of one adult and four children (which I suspect substantially overestimates the average family size), that would mean 12.3% of the population surviving on $4600 or less, not 20% on $2555 or less. Naturally, I wouldn’t want to live even on $10,294 per year, but the Times made a specific assertion about a particular number. It’s pretty clearly a false assertion.
Certainly we should address poverty in a country as wealthy as ours, but to distort or simply not verify facts on this or any issue is simply unacceptable. The plate of goodies this serves up for those looking for a cause to pursue is just to rich.
I encourage you to follow the links at the above referenced post. They are interesting reads.
Enjoy your Tuesday!
Written by Sue
Posted in Stuff
2 Responses to “Tuesday Tid-Bits”
Know what ticks me off about poverty in America? MOST of it in no way compares to poverty in the rest of the world. Except for cases of real American poverty, most of the “poor” in America are well-off or at least comfortable compared to the world’s poor.
The vast majority of American “poor” have food; TV (cable or satt); phones; computer; clothes; shelter; jobs or government checks (or both); working indoor toilets and plumbing; electricity; medical care; and so on. Much of the world’s poor are fortunate if they have food OR shelter OR clothes OR occasional medical care OR etc.
As Bret Stephens wrote (in an article speaking of a much larger context):
“A nation in which the poor are defined by an income level that in most countries would make them prosperous is a nation that has all but forgotten the true meaning of poverty. A nation in which obesity is largely a problem of the poor (and anorexia of the upper-middle class) does not understand the word ‘hunger.’”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110011097
He’s absolutely right.
And that’s also why I am so offended by John Edwards’ campaign for president. His “two Americas” schtick is ridiculous. Real poverty in, say, Juarez Mexico, is not the same as poverty defined by American bureaucrats.
Thanks for the link Big Mo. It was an interesting read.
As for the balance of your comment, ditto!